On 2 Jan 2025 12:54:37 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 2 Jan 2025 at 11:06:27 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 01/01/2025 07:04 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
I think we should always admit our citizens. If they have committed crimes >>>> under UK law then they should be prosecuted; but not excluded.
I instinctively agree with that, subject to the right of the state to
withdraw citizenship in suitably egregious cases (and I'm not at all
convinced that this would be one of those).
I really see no reason why this should ever happen, unless perhaps we are at >>war with the citizen's other state of citizenship. We would have to deal with >>any crime they committed if they *didn't* have dual citizenship.
I think we should be able to withdraw acquired citizenship, under certain circumstances. For example, if it becomes clear that British citizenship was acquired dishonestly, or where a person's criminal behaviour after acquiring citizenship is sufficiently egregious to warrant the withdrawal of citizenship as part of the judicially imposed punishment.
I don't think we should ever be able to unilaterally withdraw automatic citizenship, although I do think that where a UK citizen is also a dual national of a country that we are at war with then we should, if justified
by the circumstances, be able to treat them as a citizen of that country
(eg, preventive internment, travel restrictions, curfew etc) irrespective of their British citizenship. That would not, though, extend to permanent expulsion.
On 2025-01-02, Mark Goodge wrote:
I think we should be able to withdraw acquired citizenship, under certain
circumstances. For example, if it becomes clear that British citizenship was >> acquired dishonestly, or where a person's criminal behaviour after acquiring >> citizenship is sufficiently egregious to warrant the withdrawal of
citizenship as part of the judicially imposed punishment.
I don't think we should ever be able to unilaterally withdraw automatic
citizenship, although I do think that where a UK citizen is also a dual
national of a country that we are at war with then we should, if justified >> by the circumstances, be able to treat them as a citizen of that country
(eg, preventive internment, travel restrictions, curfew etc) irrespective of >> their British citizenship. That would not, though, extend to permanent
expulsion.
So naturalized citizens and dual-nationals (however they got that way)
should be second-class citizens compared with single-nationals by
birth? That's a very dangerous idea, and heading in the direction of >second-class treatment based on ethnicity.
Look at the nasty treatment of Japanese-Americans during WW II: most
of them were *not* loyal to Japan --- one of the significant causes of >emigration from Japan was dissatisfaction with the militaristic
government.
Equally, a dual citizen can always cease to be a dual citizen by
renouncing their non-UK citizenship.
On Tue, 07 Jan 2025 12:21:06 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:
Equally, a dual citizen can always cease to be a dual citizen by
renouncing their non-UK citizenship.
If that's possible. At one time it wasn't possible to renounce your
British citizenship - as William Joyce discovered.
On 02/01/2025 17:31, Mark Goodge wrote:
On 2 Jan 2025 12:54:37 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 2 Jan 2025 at 11:06:27 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 01/01/2025 07:04 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
I think we should always admit our citizens. If they have committed crimes
under UK law then they should be prosecuted; but not excluded.
I instinctively agree with that, subject to the right of the state to
withdraw citizenship in suitably egregious cases (and I'm not at all
convinced that this would be one of those).
I really see no reason why this should ever happen, unless perhaps we are at
war with the citizen's other state of citizenship. We would have to deal with
any crime they committed if they *didn't* have dual citizenship.
I think we should be able to withdraw acquired citizenship, under certain
circumstances. For example, if it becomes clear that British citizenship was >> acquired dishonestly, or where a person's criminal behaviour after acquiring >> citizenship is sufficiently egregious to warrant the withdrawal of
citizenship as part of the judicially imposed punishment.
I don't think we should ever be able to unilaterally withdraw automatic
citizenship, although I do think that where a UK citizen is also a dual
national of a country that we are at war with then we should, if justified >> by the circumstances, be able to treat them as a citizen of that country
(eg, preventive internment, travel restrictions, curfew etc) irrespective of >> their British citizenship. That would not, though, extend to permanent
expulsion.
Mark
The Torah, on which Judeo-Christian civilisation is built upon, says regarding foreigners:
Leviticus 24:22 22 You are to have the same law for the foreigner and
the native-born. I am the LORD your God.
Exodus 12:49 The same law will apply to both the native and the
foreigner who resides among you.
In short, any kind of double standards is absolutely forbidden. A
naturalised citizen should be equal in all regards to one born in the UK.
And even more so - a foreigner visiting or passing through should have
the same rights as a citizen.
While this is true in some respects even now (for example a foreigner
can call the emergency services and expect an equal response than if a citizen did), I believe it should be the same even in terms of residency
and working rights.
I suspect many will disagree with me but that's my view.
Mark Goodge wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
I think we should always admit our citizens. If they have committed
crimes under UK law then they should be prosecuted; but not excluded.
I instinctively agree with that, subject to the right of the state to
withdraw citizenship in suitably egregious cases (and I'm not at all
convinced that this would be one of those).
I really see no reason why this should ever happen, unless perhaps we
are at war with the citizen's other state of citizenship. We would have
to deal with any crime they committed if they *didn't* have dual
citizenship.
I think we should be able to withdraw acquired citizenship, under certain
circumstances. For example, if it becomes clear that British
citizenship was acquired dishonestly, or where a person's criminal
behaviour after acquiring citizenship is sufficiently egregious to
warrant the withdrawal of citizenship as part of the judicially
imposed punishment.
I don't think we should ever be able to unilaterally withdraw automatic
citizenship, although I do think that where a UK citizen is also a dual
national of a country that we are at war with then we should, if
justified by the circumstances, be able to treat them as a citizen of that >> country (eg, preventive internment, travel restrictions, curfew etc)
irrespective of their British citizenship. That would not, though,
extend to permanent expulsion.
The Torah, on which Judeo-Christian civilisation is built upon, says regarding foreigners:
Leviticus 24:22 22 You are to have the same law for the foreigner and
the native-born. I am the LORD your God.
Exodus 12:49 The same law will apply to both the native and the
foreigner who resides among you.
In short, any kind of double standards is absolutely forbidden. A
naturalised citizen should be equal in all regards to one born in the UK.
And even more so - a foreigner visiting or passing through should have
the same rights as a citizen.
While this is true in some respects even now (for example a foreigner
can call the emergency services and expect an equal response than if a citizen did), I believe it should be the same even in terms of residency
and working rights.
I suspect many will disagree with me but that's my view.
On Tue, 07 Jan 2025 11:37:40 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
So naturalized citizens and dual-nationals (however they got that way) >>should be second-class citizens compared with single-nationals by
birth? That's a very dangerous idea, and heading in the direction of >>second-class treatment based on ethnicity.
Nobody is forced to either be a naturalised citizen or have dual
citizenship. A naturalised citizen made a deliberate decision to come here, and we in turn made a deliberate decision to let them. It is entirely possible that that decision may later transpire to have been a serious mistake. If so, then it should also be possible to correct that mistake.
Equally, a dual citizen can always cease to be a dual citizen by renouncing their non-UK citizenship. If they are resident in the UK at a time when we are at war with their country of alternate citizenship, then it is, again, entirely reasonable to expect them to make the choice of whether to be fully on our side or remain on the fence, and, if on the fence, to accept that their choice may have consequences.
On 7 Jan 2025 at 14:07:03 GMT, "J Newman" <jenniferkatenewman@gmail.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Avowedly Christian, Jewish and Islamic governments notably fail to
honour that, both historically and currently. I believe the Koran specifically disagrees with it in some respects, but aims to treat
minorities more favourably in at least some respects.
On 2025-01-07, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jan 2025 11:37:40 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com>
wrote:
So naturalized citizens and dual-nationals (however they got that way) >>>should be second-class citizens compared with single-nationals by
birth? That's a very dangerous idea, and heading in the direction of >>>second-class treatment based on ethnicity.
Nobody is forced to either be a naturalised citizen or have dual
citizenship. A naturalised citizen made a deliberate decision to come
here, and we in turn made a deliberate decision to let them. It is
entirely possible that that decision may later transpire to have been a
serious mistake. If so, then it should also be possible to correct that
mistake.
Equally, a dual citizen can always cease to be a dual citizen by
renouncing their non-UK citizenship. If they are resident in the UK at
a time when we are at war with their country of alternate citizenship,
then it is, again, entirely reasonable to expect them to make the
choice of whether to be fully on our side or remain on the fence, and,
if on the fence, to accept that their choice may have consequences.
None of that is necessarily true. Someone may have been brought to this country and naturalised when they were very young. And there is nothing
to stop another country giving you another citizenship without your
consent or even knowledge - and it may not recognise you renouncing it
even if you do know about it.
On Tue, 07 Jan 2025 18:50:36 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-01-07, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jan 2025 11:37:40 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com>
wrote:
So naturalized citizens and dual-nationals (however they got that way) >>>>should be second-class citizens compared with single-nationals by >>>>birth? That's a very dangerous idea, and heading in the direction of >>>>second-class treatment based on ethnicity.
Nobody is forced to either be a naturalised citizen or have dual
citizenship. A naturalised citizen made a deliberate decision to come
here, and we in turn made a deliberate decision to let them. It is
entirely possible that that decision may later transpire to have been a
serious mistake. If so, then it should also be possible to correct that
mistake.
Equally, a dual citizen can always cease to be a dual citizen by
renouncing their non-UK citizenship. If they are resident in the UK at
a time when we are at war with their country of alternate citizenship,
then it is, again, entirely reasonable to expect them to make the
choice of whether to be fully on our side or remain on the fence, and,
if on the fence, to accept that their choice may have consequences.
None of that is necessarily true. Someone may have been brought to this
country and naturalised when they were very young. And there is nothing
to stop another country giving you another citizenship without your
consent or even knowledge - and it may not recognise you renouncing it
even if you do know about it.
There are a number of accidental US citizens who only find out when they
get a tax demand. Ask Boris Johnson.
On 2025-01-08, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jan 2025 18:50:36 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-01-07, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jan 2025 11:37:40 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com>
wrote:
So naturalized citizens and dual-nationals (however they got that >>>>>way)
should be second-class citizens compared with single-nationals by >>>>>birth? That's a very dangerous idea, and heading in the direction of >>>>>second-class treatment based on ethnicity.
Nobody is forced to either be a naturalised citizen or have dual
citizenship. A naturalised citizen made a deliberate decision to come
here, and we in turn made a deliberate decision to let them. It is
entirely possible that that decision may later transpire to have been
a serious mistake. If so, then it should also be possible to correct
that mistake.
Equally, a dual citizen can always cease to be a dual citizen by
renouncing their non-UK citizenship. If they are resident in the UK
at a time when we are at war with their country of alternate
citizenship, then it is, again, entirely reasonable to expect them to
make the choice of whether to be fully on our side or remain on the
fence, and, if on the fence, to accept that their choice may have
consequences.
None of that is necessarily true. Someone may have been brought to
this country and naturalised when they were very young. And there is
nothing to stop another country giving you another citizenship without
your consent or even knowledge - and it may not recognise you
renouncing it even if you do know about it.
There are a number of accidental US citizens who only find out when
they get a tax demand. Ask Boris Johnson.
It could be worse --- some countries send demands for military service.
On Tue, 07 Jan 2025 11:37:40 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2025-01-02, Mark Goodge wrote:
I think we should be able to withdraw acquired citizenship, under certain >>> circumstances. For example, if it becomes clear that British citizenship was
acquired dishonestly, or where a person's criminal behaviour after acquiring
citizenship is sufficiently egregious to warrant the withdrawal of
citizenship as part of the judicially imposed punishment.
I don't think we should ever be able to unilaterally withdraw automatic
citizenship, although I do think that where a UK citizen is also a dual
national of a country that we are at war with then we should, if justified >>> by the circumstances, be able to treat them as a citizen of that country >>> (eg, preventive internment, travel restrictions, curfew etc) irrespective of
their British citizenship. That would not, though, extend to permanent
expulsion.
So naturalized citizens and dual-nationals (however they got that way) >>should be second-class citizens compared with single-nationals by
birth? That's a very dangerous idea, and heading in the direction of >>second-class treatment based on ethnicity.
Nobody is forced to either be a naturalised citizen or have dual
citizenship. A naturalised citizen made a deliberate decision to come here, and we in turn made a deliberate decision to let them. It is entirely possible that that decision may later transpire to have been a serious mistake. If so, then it should also be possible to correct that mistake.
Equally, a dual citizen can always cease to be a dual citizen by renouncing their non-UK citizenship. If they are resident in the UK at a time when we are at war with their country of alternate citizenship, then it is, again, entirely reasonable to expect them to make the choice of whether to be fully on our side or remain on the fence, and, if on the fence, to accept that their choice may have consequences.
Look at the nasty treatment of Japanese-Americans during WW II: most
of them were *not* loyal to Japan --- one of the significant causes of >>emigration from Japan was dissatisfaction with the militaristic
government.
The fact that "somebody else did it badly" isn't a reason for us not having the ability to do it. Dictatorships have police, courts and prisons, but that's not a reason why we shouldn't have them. What matters is not having the powers, but how we use them.
Mark
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 08:45:08 |
| Calls: | 10,388 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,835 |
| Posted today: | 1 |